Choose country

Genetics and geographical distribution

Published: 14 April 2011 (GMT+10)

The ability of ocean currents to distribute floating objects around the world is
renowned. When thousands of bathtub rubber ducks were lost off a container ship
in the North Pacific in 1992, they floated to Australia and South America, and subsequently
into the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. See
Biogeography.

Not all the feedback we receive from atheists is necessarily hostile. Matthew B.
writes in with a couple of scientific questions. His messages are printed in full,
followed by responses from CMI-US’s
Dr. Robert Carter.

Dear Creation.com,

I am impressed and pleased for your level of devotion to this website, but unfortunately
do not agree with it.

I shall not attempt to waste your time by trying to answer questions which you have
already tried to answer on this site, but restrict my email to just two questions
which I feel have not been adequately explained/rebutted.

1) Do you dispute the evidence from genetic distribution of characteristics as evidence
for evolution? It is scientifically proven that certain animals/plants share certain
genetic characteristics, and it is accepted that they can be arranged into a hierarchy
that fits independently with the hierarchy specified and predicted by evolution.
Would you care to describe the creationist perspective?

(NB/ Please do not use the traditional ‘God made that hierarchy’ answer;
I would prefer to know why if that is the case, and have scientific reasons given).

2) Do you dispute the evidence for evolution from the geographical distribution
of life? It is accepted that the distribution of plants and animals fits with the
theories of evolution and plate tectonics. Having visited the (generally recognized)
best examples of this theory’s consequences in person (Madagascar and the
Galapagos), I am astounded that anyone can dispute the sound logic and hard proven
science surrounding this issue. Please describe the creationist ‘rebuttal’
of this argument in a way that would satisfy a biologist/geographer (as myself).

Evolution predicts similarity due to common ancestry. Creation predicts similarity
due to common design. Finding hierarchical relationships, therefore, proves neither.

I hope to hear some good sound answers to increase my respect and understanding
of the creationist worldview. Please bear in mind that I am an atheist, and as such
do not see the Bible as evidence in any way for the view of creationism. Good luck!

My kindest regards,

Matthew B.

Dear Matthew,

I will do my best to answer your detailed challenge.

1) Evolution predicts similarity due to common ancestry. Creation predicts similarity
due to common design. Finding hierarchical relationships, therefore, proves neither.
True, creation makes no specific predictions about the nature of those
similarities. We would happily incorporate many scenarios into our model. But the
same is true of evolutionary theory (e.g.,
horses and bats sharing a close genetic relationship does not topple the
theory in the minds of the holders of evolutionary theory). I would suggest you
familiarize yourself with Walter ReMine’s The Biotic Message. He says the message is plain for all to see:
near-hierarchical relationships that defy evolutionary explanation is what we would
expect from a Creator. One can most easily see this in the rise of horizontal gene
transfer theory that has come out in light of the many surprises found at what was
expected to be the base of the tree of life.1
There are other surprises, at all levels, in fact.

2) Biogeography is a fun topic, but it is not the death-knell of creation. I, too,
have been to the Galápagos, and Madagascar is on top of my list of places
I want to visit next. Unlike you, I have also been to the
Wallace Line (I stood on the rim of the Gunung Agung volcano on Bali, looking
out as the sun rose above the peaks of Lombok, and wondered why the plants and animals
on the other side of the narrow strait were so different. The answer, of course,
is that during the low water stand at the height of
glaciation Bali and Lombok were the extreme ends of two separate landmasses.).

The Galápagos is probably the best example of the creationist position.

We have several articles that discuss biogeography on
creation.com, but the best summary of the creationist position appears in
an article by Dominic Statham in the latest Journal of Creation.2 Are you sure biogeography
is such a great case for evolution? While it is true that there are some cases that
fit the model, there are many that do not. For example, up until recently, marsupial
fossils had been found on all the continents except Australia (the Australian
finds were recent and indicate that conclusions about fossil distributions should
be held tentatively).3 Why?
If one of the defences I have read in the evolutionary literature pops into your
mind, I would be less than satisfied with your answer.

The Galápagos is probably the best example of the creationist position. What
mechanism brought the animals there in the evolutionary model? Rafting. In his report,
Captain Fitzroy even commented about the piles of trees and shrubs washed up on
the southern shores of the islands in the archipelago.4 Huge rafts made of plant material, some over a mile
in diameter, form even today off the mouth of the Guayas River (Guayaquil, Ecuador).
I have seen some of the smaller ones from a plane.5
It is possible for even large animals to survive for long periods of time on such
rafts. What would one predict from the Genesis Flood? Huge vegetation rafts with
plants and animals being distributed along oceanic currents—rapidly.

Summary: Plant seeds, spores, and vegetative structures were dispersed across the
globe by oceanic currents during the Flood. Post-Flood climate and environment dictated
which plants could survive in a given locality. Transport by rafting, wind, animals,
and people added to the distribution patterns. Air-breathing animals dispersed from
the Ararat region by walking, flying, and rafting, arriving at the most distant
locales in relatively short order. People dispersed in a single mass wave, with
many localized permutations, from the Middle East. That is what we believe and we
believe there is abundant evidence for this position.

Sincerely,

Dr. Robert Carter

Matthew wrote back:

Dear Dr Carter,

Thank you very much for your reply! I am pleased that there is some good reasoning
behind the creationist science of your response.

However, I feel that there is one point you have not adequately justified.

I am not sure that your theory actually requires that there be a flood in the history
of Earth. You suggest that this flood requisitely dispersed seeds, animals and vegetative
rafts (as in the example of Galapagos). Why is this? Surely over both the timeframes
of evolutionary theory and creation theory rafts floating across the sea are possible,
and do not necessitate the help of a cataclysmic ‘biblical flood’. Although
I see it as very difficult to envision the mechanics of a flood on such a scale,
I can see it being rather difficult for such rafts to remain hospitable and intact
following the impact of a massive body of water with great velocity and potential.
On a religious note, wasn’t the flood intended to purge the Earth? Wouldn’t
a deity intending to wipe out life (save Noah and co.) consider the possibility
of vegetation-rafts providing a safe haven for wildlife? Anyhow, I do not see any
conflict of science or ‘belief’ between evolution and creation when
it comes to the dispersal of seeds etc., as the mechanisms necessary would exist
(as far as I am aware– please say if I am wrong) both in a godless world and
a created one (i.e. wind, the sea, rivers, animals).

Returning to the matter of the Galapagos, what is the creationist explanation for
the adaptations of Galapagos Giant Tortoises and their different shell shapes relating
to the niches on their respective islands? Hopefully we can agree that this is natural
selection at work, as the species itself has not changed. Nevertheless, are these
changes not homologous and translatable to the divergence of the ancestral iguana
to become the different species of the marine and land iguanas? How is
this explained differently to natural selection?

Regarding marsupials, I shall not pretend to be an expert in the matter!

Your point, however, sounds fascinating, and I would love to study it further to
provide an evolutionary based theory for you to analyse, and refine your creation-based
concepts accordingly.

My other issue is that of your answer to genetic hierarchies. Firstly, if it neither
proves nor disproves evolution, it cannot be taken as evidence against it. Likewise,
it cannot go in favour of creation theory. Secondly, the scientific method is the
pursuit of truth based upon observation. If extensive observation points towards
one hypothesis, then science will pursue the formation of a theory, which is then
tested and peer reviewed (as I am sure you are aware). My problem therefore, is
this. If we observe a distribution of characteristics both in the current pool of
characteristics of living organisms and fossilized organisms, we can study it and
form a theory. If the genetic distribution reflects this also, then the theory has
more evidence. This is (from what I can glean) the case with evolution, where genetic
hierarchies demonstrate the expected pattern and same pattern as with physical characteristics
and properties. So, as you say, genetics is not conclusive ‘proof’ (if
such a thing could exist for anything) of evolution, rather a ‘non-contradiction’
that give a bit more weight to the scientific model.

I hope you appreciate my attitude to the ongoing ‘evolution vs creation’
debate. I accept that certain presuppositions between scientists and YECs prevent
a universal agreement from being drawn up, but a lot of scientific inaccuracies
exist between the theories which can be sorted by discussion and application of
good science.

My best wishes (and a merry Christmas!),

Matthew B.

Dr. Carter responded:

Dear Matthew,

The reason our theory requires a Flood is that our theory is based on revelation.
The Bible plainly teaches it, various biblical authors reference it as history,
and the global extents and effects of it are demanded by the wording used (See our
Noah’s Flood questions
and answers page). Yes, it is difficult to visualize the Flood itself, and,
yes, such rafts would generally not be hospitable to life, especially since the
entire purpose of the Flood was to purge the earth of both people and air-breathing
animals, but you assume an "impact" of "a massive body of water with great velocity
and potential." This is reading something into the text that is not there (even
if it is likely).

I think, though, that I need to clarify a point. The massive mats of vegetation
would aid dispersion after the fact, not during. The Flood was amazingly destructive,
as evidenced by many facts, including the massive deposits of coal (well-sorted
plant material) on regional scales. I visited Mt. St. Helens a few months ago (See
After devastation …
the recovery). It was my first time there and I was struck by the fact that
there is still a substantial log mat floating on Spirit Lake. This was thirty years
after the eruption! It is residual material like this, floating on the oceans and
drifting around the earth for decades that would aid dispersal of the air-breathing
animals after the Flood.

Galápagos tortoises, etc.: The creationist explanation for the species on
the Galápagos is similar to our explanation of world-wide patterns: a few
of these animals arrived on the Galápagos (via rafting), managed to survive,
grew into a population, and spread to neighboring islands via small-scale dispersal
events. Each of the islands is separated by enough water to provide limited isolation
for each sub-population (on a short time scale) and founder effects, genetic drift,
private mutation within each sub-population, and, perhaps, a dose of natural selection6 would drive each sub-population
apart. Please note that many of the ‘species’ are freely interfertile,7 but are prevented from interbreeding
by geography alone. This is even true for species living together on a single island,
as the females tend to stay at high elevation. Thus, the largest island has five
main volcanic peaks and five ‘species’ of giant tortoise. I suppose,
so far, that this is exactly the evolutionists’ position. We differ, however,
in the time required for these changes to occur, the mechanisms behind it, and the
extents of possible variation. Darwin said he could see no limit to the amount of
variation that natural selection could produce. We believe quite strongly that life
is not designed to be infinitely mutable, that a living organism is designed to
change but that too much change will ruin the complex system keeping it alive, that
Darwin failed to provide a mechanism that would allow for infinite mutability, and
that modern genetics has not rescued him.

Are you surprised that we believe in speciation, adaptation, genetic drift, etc.?
If so, I suspect you have been taught that creationists believe in the fixity of
species (search creation.com for "fixity of species" to see how we deal with this).
This is not a teaching of the Bible, but of Aristotle! Yes, most people in Darwin’s
day believed it, but they were allowing the weight of one ancient authority to trump
another.

Scientific method: All science has to start with a set of
presuppositions. As Christians, we start with an ultimate Creator and Lawgiver.
Our methodology derives from this and I believe we have a solid and consistent line
of reasoning. This approach, coming straight out of the Reformation, has borne tremendous
fruit over the years as most branches of science were founded by a person with this
view (See the many examples in
Scientists of the past who believed in a Creator). Evolutionists start with
the assumption of naturalism, that natural processes explain everything that ever
was, is now, and ever will be. Thus, it is not the data we are quibbling over, but
an overarching theory of how to collect, interpret, and act on the data.

You said, "the scientific method is the pursuit of truth based upon observation,"
then showed how you see confirming trends from observation, correlation between
living and fossil forms, genetic relationships of living species, and peer review.
I would like to point out that this set of correspondences is all interpreted in
the light of naturalism and that the peer reviewers are all naturalists. Throw a
creationist on that review board and there is going to be very little agreement
on your list of corresponding evidences! Why is this? It is because fundamental
assumptions drive everything in science. We cannot escape them as people and our
science is not free from the limits of humanity.

Thank you for the refreshing discussion. It is not often that we get a level-headed
exchange at this level and I hope you can see that I am trying to answer as forthrightly
as possible.

May God bless you with New Knowledge (my version of "best wishes").

Robert

Matthew responded one last time:

Robert,

Thank you again for some logical responses.

I think that the philosophy of your response has triumphed over the science, in
that you have described how presuppositions (or as they are mathematically/epistemologically
known, ‘axioms’) are fundamental to both science and creationism (if
you will forgive me for separating them quite so unfairly). This, in my mind, justifies
your position on a fundamental level; count it as a triumph for creationism, as
you have persuaded an atheist that your points are justified!

However, as you probably expected me to say, I am not a creationist (please do not
take the sentence above without this). The argument from axiomatic construction
of theory does not put either science or creation science higher than the other.
Therefore, one could conclude that whilst creationists and scientists are ‘correct’
in their stances, neither is in a position to claim the ‘better’ theory.
Therefore, I still disagree with attempts to dismantle, disprove or otherwise inhibit
the theory of evolution from being taught to those whose scientific worldview pertains
to evolution or related branches of science. Although I do think that it is worth
creationism existing in the media for people of other persuasions to build on their
worldviews. As should be clear from our correspondence, our shared intention is
that of building upon and embellishing the intellectual adequacy of our worldviews.

However, the reason that I choose to remain studying mainstream academia with evolution,
cosmology etc. is that of non-axiomatic (that is, derived) intellectual satisfaction.
That is, if you like, very much a matter of opinion. Basically, I strongly feel
that the axioms of science and mainstream mathematically derived academia build
a stronger more justifiable theory than creationist axioms do. I feel that the fundamental
truths taken to build our current model of science are of greater intellectual value***
than those taken by creationists, such as ‘God exists’, since this cannot
be materially demonstrated (as far as I can see), as explained in the attachment
below.

So in summary, creationism is valid (in my opinion), but equally valid as mainstream
science on an epistemological level, as they are both relying on presuppositions/axioms.
However, axioms needn’t be downright admissions to having no reason to assert
them, as it may be that those particular axioms are more consistent with the way
in which the world is observed to function than others, they do not contradict each
other and have a certain intrinsic observability in the universe. Therefore, I feel
that I have an intellectual reason to support evolution with mainstream academia
over creationism. Since the two theories are derived from many of the same axioms
(like a b=b a) there is much that they share in common, and as such I feel that
it would be a good idea if both sides of the argument reduce their worldviews to
the logical ‘bare roots’ I have been describing, to provide a better
degree of communication and review between the camps and hopefully aid to wash over
some of the militant hatred and anger that certain members of each persuasion demonstrate.
Like a two party political system, science would potentially be a lot weaker without
constructive criticism and persistent questioning that which creationist organizations
supply, and equally creationism has many points to improve on or repair based on
new scientific knowledge based on shared presuppositions.

I agree with your last comment, that our discussion is very refreshing and unusual.
I don’t suppose that such level-headedness and logic is often supplied from
either creationist or evolutionist when resent or unpleasantness is introduced into
the argument. I have already specified that I would not mind any of this being published
in any of your magazines etc., and would like to uphold that. I feel that should
you wish to publish this then you should be encouraged to. Both sides have a lot
to learn from this discussion.

I may be in a position to hold discussion with Prof. Richard Dawkins in January
next year. If I do, I shall certainly raise many of your points. I am a keen supporter
of his worldview and have read many of his books, although certainly much of the
resent and annoyance he displays is neither necessary, nor beneficial. Hopefully
he is open-minded enough to take on some comments. A paradigm shift in the evolution
vs creation community is needed, and these logical correspondences could be along
the right lines of thinking required to achieve that.

Thank you very much again for your replies; you are probably the best ambassador
for creationism whom I have come across. Think of me as an atheist ally to creation
science-I do not agree with it, but appreciate it, understand the reasoning and
do not dislike it.

Kind regards,
Matthew B.

***i.e. a b = b a, is an *axiom* for real-number algebra, but has a very real and
evident place in our universe, as we can demonstrate that 4 sweets plus one sweet
equals the same amount as if added the other way around. This axiom or presupposition
builds a very satisfactory, intrinsic theory that supports evidence in the real
world. In fact, Einstein’s model of General Relativity builds upon this very
axiom and other real number axioms, with certain higher algebraic axioms to build
a, in my opinion, equally satisfactory model of cosmology. This reasoning spreads
outwards to encompass the entirety of modern science, save some of the more radical,
abstract theory such as string theory which cannot really be considered to be ‘fact’
due to lack of conceptual and material evidence.

Dr. Carter’s final response:

Matthew,

This has been a pleasure. If you see Dr. Dawkins, please tell him that you had a
pleasant exchange with a man that shares an office with Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, author
of
Evolution: The Greatest Hoax on Earth?

This has been a very popular book among the members of the creationist community
and is a strong rebuttal to Dawkins’ Evolution: the Greatest Show on Earth.
Greatest Hoax has material on pre-Darwinian creationist beliefs about the
NON-fixity of species, Lyell’s ideas about fixity and his "centers of creation",
biogeography, homology, and the Christian roots of science, all of which are pertinent
to our discussion. If you really wanted to learn what we believe and why, I could
not recommend this book more highly.

I understand that you hesitate to accord creationism the same scientific status
as evolution. Thank you for at least admitting that we are on good philosophical
grounds. As a former (briefly) evolutionist, I would encourage you to examine the
philosophical underpinnings of ‘mainstream’ science. When I did this,
the naturalistic construct collapsed like a house of cards. This is why I used that
line of argumentation in my second message. Today, I feel that creation is a much
better explanation for the world around us, and we are making great strides almost
daily in multiple fields. Our case is getting stronger, not weaker, as we learn
more about the complexity
of the genome,
catastrophic geology,
cosmology, speciation,
climate,
radiometric dating, etc., etc. I am a ‘presuppositionalist’,
not an ‘evidentialist’, but I am not a creationist solely because
I am a Christian and believe the Bible. I am also a creationist because I believe
the weight of evidence points to a young, created universe. My presupposition is
strong, but I feel it is well justified. Let us end with that.

Further Reading

References

Lawton, G., Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life,
New Scientist 2699, Jan 21, 2009. Return to text.

Statham, D., Biogeography, Journal of Creation
24(1):82-87, 2010. Also, search Creation.com for “biogeography”,
and the interested reader may want to pick up a copy of Evolution: Good Science, which includes a chapter on biogeography.
Return to text.

Here is the original problem, as expressed by two
evolutionists: “Living marsupials are restricted to Australia and South America
… In contrast, metatherian [marsupial] fossils from the Late Cretaceous are
exclusively from Eurasia and North America … This geographical switch remains
unexplained.” Cifelli, R.L., and Davis, B.M., Marsupial origins, Science
302:1899–1900, 2003.The story has changed, now that marsupial
fossils have been found in Australia, but the puzzle of their current vs. fossil
distribution remains. Return to text.

FitzRoy, R., Narrative of the surveying voyages of His
Majesty’s Ships Adventure and Beagle between the years 1826 and 1836, describing
their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle’s
circumnavigation of the globe. Proceedings of the second expedition, 1831-36, under
the command of Captain Robert Fitz-Roy, R.N, London: Henry Colburn, 1839, p.
505. Available online at http://darwin-online.org.uk. Return to text.

A well known evolutionist, who happened to be sitting next
to me during the flight out of Guayaquil, pointed these vegetation rafts out to
me and told me how large they sometimes get. Since she did not know that I was a
creationist, yet, and since she would probably not want to be associated with CMI,
I will allow her to remain anonymous. Return to text.

It is hard to imagine selective differences from one island
to the next. Indeed, Darwin himself rote on page 474 of the 1839 version of his
published journal, “ … it never occurred to me, that the productions
[species being generated, a reference to Lyell’s “centers of creation”
idea] of islands only a few miles apart, and placed under the same physical conditions,
would be dissimilar.” He made an even stronger statement in the 1845
version, pp. 393-394. These documents can be accessed freely at http://darwin-online.org.uk.
Return to text.

Readers’ comments

Dr. Carter, thank you for sharing the truly encouraging and edifying correspondence in this article. I just have one comment about your statement that the starting point of an ultimate Creator and Lawgiver came straight out of the Reformation. God as Creator and Lawgiver is a concept that was integral to the Church long before the Reformation, as Scripture and the writings of the Doctors of the Church attest. If you have not read it, Thomas Aquinas has a lengthy dissertation on the nature of law, and I believe Jay RIchards of the Discovery Institute discusses Aquinas in relation to intelligent design in his recent book, “God and Evolution.” While I do not share the common Intelligent Design position of accepting common descent, many of their philosophical arguments accord with the positions of CMI.

While there is certainly a commonality among all Christians concerning our approach to and how we understand God, the Reformation had a drastic impact on how that plays out in real life. Of course Aquinas, and many other pre-Reformation writers and thinkers, would agree with the idea of God as a lawgiver, but it was the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, strictly applied by Luther and others, that laid the foundation for a rational understanding of the workings of the universe. The type of analytical thinking employed by the Reformers spilled over into the sciences. The rest, as they say, is history.
Please see The Biblical Roots of Modern Science and related links for further documentation.

Thank you very much for sharing your discussion yesterday on the subject; Genetics and geographical distribution. Your humble, honest and professional way of sharing thoughts and opinions is inspiring and I wish all evolutionists and creationists would learn from you.

I am a Christian from Norway studying the creation vs evolution question and, as Dr. Carter, I see that the more science discovers the more confident I get that creation has the best case. However I also have to agree with Mr. Matthew B. that we need both sides to challenge each other to seek the truth. I wish all discussions on this topic could be held at this level.

That was a fun read. I truly appreciate the respectful tone used while still holding fast to the truth. This is a model of how one can speak the truth in love, yet with boldness and without compromise.
Thanks

Great article! It is very nice to see a believer in Evolution be willing to respectfully debate and not resort to personal attacks as is so common.
However, Matthew’s statement—“Basically, I strongly feel that the axioms of science and mainstream mathematically derived academia build a stronger more justifiable theory than creationist axioms do.”–demonstrates the same omission of basic scientific law that I have experienced from every Evolution supporter I have ever read or talked with. That is, the second law of thermodynamics and its requirement for an outside force to allow a system to go from a state of disorganization to organization, or from chaos to sophistication. I have never been presented with any reasonable scientific explanation that can explain how the Theory of Evolution can explain the world when keeping the Entropy in mind.
Please keep up the great work!

Wow! Balance on both sides! I wish I could have such a civilized discussion with some of my atheist friends. As it is, such discussion most often quickly devolves into dispute over the intransigence of each party.
I don’t claim to be the level headed one in such experiences. When attacked, I tend to attack back and it goes downhill from there. I will try to learn from your example.

The responses of Dr. Carter were excellent. And even though his correspondent was reasonably polite, I think Dr. Carter refrained from any harshness–more so than I would have myself (given the occasional condescension or lapse in logic that still existed in the correspondent’s messages, in spite of his overall politeness).

“Therefore, one could conclude that whilst creationists and scientists are ‘correct’ in their stances, neither is in a position to claim the ‘better’ theory. Therefore, I still disagree with attempts to dismantle, disprove or otherwise inhibit the theory of evolution from being taught to those whose scientific worldview pertains to evolution or related branches of science.”
Interesting that he objects to attempts to inhibit evolution being taught but probably goes along with having creation banned from the class-rooms by not speaking out against such opposition.

Feedback Guidelines

Links to external sites and articles will be removed from your submission.

Privacy & Content Ownership

Comments become the property of Creation Ministries International upon submission and may be edited for brevity and clarity.

CMI may choose not to publish your comment depending on how well it fits the guidelines outlined above.

By submitting your comment you are agreeing to receive email updates from Creation Ministries International. You may unsubscribe at any time.

CMI records your real name, email address, and country as a sign of good faith. Privacy Policy

If your comment is published, your name will be displayed as ""

Cancel

Accept & Continue

Close

You are leaving CREATION.com

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.